[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Somesh @ Daddu S/O Ravindra Dhavrade vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Chief ... on 16 February, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:2644-DB
39-WP-1064-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1064 OF 2025
(Shri Ganesh s/o Yashwant Junghare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 1073 OF 2025, 6/2026,
10/2026, 16/2026, 24/2026, 25/2026, 35/2026, 39/2026,
65/2026 AND 66/2026
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1064/2025
Mr. A.M. Chandekar with Mr. S.N. Singh, Counsel for the
petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1073/2025
Mr. R.K. Tiwari with Mr. V.V. Raut and Mr. Abhijeet Korpenwar,
Counsel for the petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6/2026
Mr. M.N. Ali, Counsel for the petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 10/2026
Mr. N.P. Meshram, Counsel for the petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 16/2026
Mr. R.P. Durge, Counsel for the petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24/2026
Mr. A.N. Shinde, Counsel for the petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 25/2026
Mr. A.G. Hunge, Counsel for the petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 35/2026
Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Senior Counsel with Mr. P.S. Chawhan,
Counsel for the petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 39/2026
Mr. V.R. Hamand with Ms A.Z. Ansari, Counsel for the
petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 65/2026
Mr. R.A. Biranware, Counsel for the petitioner.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 66/2026
Mr. A.M. Chandekar with Mr. S.N. Singh, Counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, Mr. A.B. Badar, Ms R.V.
Sharma, and Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P.s for the State in respective
petitions.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
FEBRUARY 16, 2026
Heard.
2] Despite our orders directing the respondents
to place on record copy of order of conferment of powers
and approval of detention order passed under Section 3
of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities
Act, 1981 (for short, "Act of 1981"), the respondents have
not placed the said orders before the Court. Nonetheless,
the learned A.P.P. appearing in each matter submits that
these orders are identical, rather are the orders which
were considered by this Court in earlier proceedings and
were quashed.
3] In an identical set of facts presented before
this Court in the case of Akshay Bhaskar Sahare Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 223/2025] with
connected petitions, this Court (Coram: Anil L. Pansare
and Siddheshwar S. Thombre, JJ.), after going through
the orders passed under Sections 3(2), 3(3) and 12 of the
Act of 1981, in each case, found that the State
Government has exercised these powers without
providing sufficient reasons, wherein, circumstances
prevailing in entire State of Maharashtra were treated
identical. The Court took a view that such approach
depict lack of application of mind resulting into violation
of right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. The Court further held that
detention order under Section 3(2) and subsequent
approval under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1981 were not
properly grounded and that power to issue order of
conferment, which is vested with the State Government,
only comes into play for a defined area and period and
only if circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail are
such that detention of a person would be justified. The
Court also opined that such an order, if is to be made, it
must be made while explicitly describing specific
circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail during the
time period, which should be tied to those circumstances.
4] With regard to approval orders, the Court
noted that they were passed without recording grounds or
reasoning and were issued by an official below the
required rank. The confirmation orders, passed under
Section 12 of the Act of 1981, were also passed as routine
and were non-reasoned determinations that did not show
why detention needed to continue for twelve months. The
process, by which Section 12 confirmation was conveyed
to the detenu, was also found improper. The Court also
explained the vitality of the Advisory Board as a
Constitutional safeguard and noted that in these cases,
the Board's role did not rectify the procedural deficiencies
at other stages. The Court also held that once order of
conferment of powers under Section 3 by the State
Government to its officers is found to be illegal, the order
of detention would be void ab initio.
5] This judgment was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.18690 of 2025 [State of Maharashtra &
Anr. Vs. Akshay Bhaskar Sahare] . The Supreme Court,
after consideration, dismissed the same by order dated
21/11/2025
6] That being so, we need not go through the
orders of detention in each case presented before us to
render a finding on merit. It is a different matter that on
merit as well, the issue of public order, as defined under
Section 2(a) of the Act of 1981, is not taken into
consideration while passing detention order, in the cases
under question. The orders of approval are also passed in
a mechanical manner. Similar is the status of orders that
are passed under Section 12, most importantly, orders
under Section 12, conveyed to the petitioners, are passed
by Section Officer, except in some cases, without giving
reasons as required under Section 12. The order sans
reason is unsustainable.
7] That being so, and since the issue involved
is covered, for the reasons set out in order dated
30/9/2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.
223/2025 with connected petitions, we allow the
petitions. The orders of detention under Section 3(2), as
also, the orders of confirmation under Section 12 of the
Act of 1981 passed by the respondents, stand quashed
and set aside. The petitioners shall be released forthwith,
if not required in any other case.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/02/2026 17:38:10
